-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #1 -------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14711 / November 2, 1995

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GENE BLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A BLOCK CONSULTING SERVICES, RENATE HAAG, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A HAAG + PARTNER, AND ROBERT T. RILEY, JR., INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A THE ROBERTS GROUP (United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 95-11748RCL).

     The Commission announced that on November 2, 1995, the
Honorable Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts unsealed an order entered by the Court
on October 26, 1995, temporarily restraining Renate Haag ("Haag")
of Langen, Germany and Malibu, California, doing business as Haag
+ Partner, from continuing her fraudulent offering of securities.

The Court's order also freezes Haag's assets, requires Haag to
file a sworn accounting, orders the repatriation of investor
funds and grants other emergency relief.  The relief was entered
on the Commission's ex parte motion in connection with an
enforcement action alleging that Haag was engaging in an ongoing,
fraudulent securities offering of so-called "prime bank
instruments" in violation of the antifraud and registration
provisions of the federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Commission alleges that since at least
October 1994, Haag has been the central figure in a fraudulent
scheme that has induced members of the public to invest over $1
million in her programs by promising, in some cases, returns as
high as 200%-420% annually.  In addition to Haag, Gene Block of
Durham, North Carolina ("Block"), doing business as Block
Consulting Services, and Robert T. Riley, Jr. of St. Louis,
Missouri ("Riley"), doing business as The Roberts Group, were
offering and selling the unregistered and fraudulent Haag +
Partner programs through various methods, including
advertisements on the Internet.  Previously, on August 8, 1995,
the Court entered a temporary restraining order and asset freeze
on the Commission's ex parte motion against Block.  On September
14, 1995, Block consented to the entry of a preliminary
injunction.

     The Commission further alleges that as an inducement to
potential investors, the Defendants have represented that
investors' funds would be invested in risk-free, high-yield
investment programs.  The Defendants have falsely represented
that the initial investment is guaranteed against loss because a
"Prime Bank Guarantee" will be used as security for the
transaction.  In fact, there are no legitimate financial
instruments known as "Prime Bank Guarantees."  The Defendants
have also fraudulently represented that investors' funds are
doubled by buying and selling "Bank Instruments."  However, the
Defendants have failed to disclose the nature of the "Bank
Instruments," how the trading will generate such unrealistic
returns, or the risk that the returns will not be achieved.  None
of the Defendants or their businesses are registered with the
Commission as a broker-dealer, nor are they associated with any
broker-dealer registered with the Commission.

     The Commission alleges that the Defendants have violated the
antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities
laws.  The Commission seeks the following relief:  (i) a
permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from further
violations of the antifraud and broker-dealer registration
provisions of the federal securities laws; (ii) disgorgement of

-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #2 -------------------

the Defendants' ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest
thereon; and (iii) civil monetary penalties in an amount to be
determined by the Court.  The Court has scheduled a hearing on
the Commission's application for a preliminary injunction against
Haag for November 6, 1995.

     For further information, see Litigation Release No. 14598.